Research & Development: R&D Program Annual Panel Peer Review

R&D Menu


 Department of Transportation (DOT) Operating Agencies (OA) are implementing a systematic process for peer review addressing all influential and highly influential information that the OA plans to disseminate in the "foreseeable" future.

Through the Information Quality Act[1], Congress directed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to "provide policy and procedural guidance to Federal agencies for ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information, (including statistical information) disseminated by Federal agencies." A resulting OMB Bulletin entitled, "Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review" was issued prescribing required procedures for Federal programs.

The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) produced procedures governing modal implementation of this OMB Bulletin. These procedures, as well as the OMB Bulletin, serve as the basis and justification for the PHMSA Pipeline Safety R&D Program peer reviews.

Peer reviews are intended to uncover any technical problems or unsolved issues in a scientific work product through the use of technically competent and independent (objective) experts. Peer review of a major scientific work product that will have the imprimatur of the Federal Government needs to be incorporated into the upfront planning of any action based in the work product. This includes obtaining the proper resources commitments (reviewers and funds) then establishing realistic schedules.

While addressing program strategy, a systematic evaluation process was designed and implemented for raising and validating program quality. The process contains five steps and follows research projects from their inception to result implementation. Each step of this systematic process ensures that project outcomes will be of high quality, relevant to the mission of PHMSA and applied to the appropriate end users.

Keeping within this collaborative process, PHMSA will hold annual peer reviews on all post-award or active research projects. This action ensures that quality is addressed throughout the lifecycle of research (pre-solicitation, pre-award, and post-award). These projects must stay true to the goals conceived in consensus at R&D Forums and as promised by researchers receiving the government research award. If projects deviate they are adjusted or modified using the feedback from peer review panels.

Interested in becoming a peer review panelist? Have any comments on our process? Do you have a question PHMSA could ask on one of our active projects for an upcoming review? Send us some feedback.


Listing of Annual Peer Reviews (2006-2012)
No. Date Peer
Review ID		 Complete Projects
Reviewed		 Very
Effective		 Effective Moderately
Effective		 Ineffective
1. February 2006 PHP-1-2006 Yes 31 29 2 0 0
2. March 2007 PHP-2-2007 Yes 27 26 1 0 0
3. May 2008 PHP-3-2008 Yes 29 28 1 0 0
4. April 2009 PHP-4-2009 Yes 42 34 8 0 0
5. April 2010 PHP-5-2010 Yes 35 26 9 0 0
6. April 2011 PHP-6-2011 Yes 33 24 9 0 0
7. April 2012 PHP-7-2012 Yes 15 7 8 0 0


Listing of Annual Peer Reviews (2013+)
No. Date Peer
Review ID		 Complete Projects
Reviewed		 Very
Effective		 More than
Effective		 Effective Ineffective
8. April 2013 PHP-8-2013 Yes 6 5 1 0 0
9. May 2014 PHP-9-2014 Yes 24 13 11 0 0
10. May 2015 PHP-10-2015 Yes 15 10 5 0 0
11. May 2016 PHP-11-2016 Yes 24 8 16 0 0
12. May 2017 PHP-12-2017 Yes 18 5 13 0 0
13. May 2018 PHP-12-2018 Yes 5 0 5 0 0
14. May 2019 PHP-13-2019 Yes 17 2 15 0 0
15. October 2020 PHP-15-2020 Yes 29 11 16 2 0


________________
1 Pub. Law. No. 106-554-515(a)